Shevuot 62

אמר להו רב פפא אי מפקדון גמרי לה רבנן דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דדון מינה ומינה

Said R'Papa to them: If the Rabbis deduce it from [the law of] deposit, none disagrees that we 'deduce from it, and [entirely] from it';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Sages would therefore hold that if he swore of his own accord even outside the Beth Din he would be liable.');">¹</span> but this is the reason of the Rabbis; they deduce it by inference from minor to major:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From oath of testimony itself, and not from deposit at all.');">²</span> since, if [adjured] by others, he is liable; if [he swears] of his own accord, how much more so should he be liable; and because they deduce it by inference from minor to major, [they hold] it is sufficient for that which is deduced by this inference to be similar to that from which it is deduced:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle of dayyo (v. B.K. 25a) is that the derived law cannot logically be stricter than the original law.');">³</span>

אלא היינו טעמא דרבנן דמייתו לה בקל וחומר ומה מפי אחרים חייב מפי עצמו לא כל שכן

just as, if adjured by others, he is liable before the Beth Din only, but not outside the Beth Din; so, if he swears of his own accord, he is liable before the Beth Din only, but not outside the Beth Din. Said the Scholars to R'Papa: How can you say that they do not disagree on [the principle of] 'deduce from it, and [entirely] from it'? Surely we learnt concerning a deposit: The oath of deposit applies to men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those unqualified, before the Beth Din and not before the Beth Din, if [uttered] from his own mouth; but if [adjured] by the mouth of others, he is not liable unless he denies it before the Beth Din: this is the opinion of R'Meir.

ומדמייתו לה מקל וחומר דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה מושבע מפי אחרים בב"ד אין שלא בב"ד לא אף מושבע מפי עצמו בפני ב"ד אין שלא בפני ב"ד לא

And the Sages say, whether [uttered] by his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others, since he denied it, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he denied it outside the Beth Din.');">⁴</span> [Now,] if adjured by the mouth of others, in [the case of] a deposit, how do the Sages know that he is liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Holy Writ says: he hath sworn falsely (Lev. V, 24) , implying of his own accord. vua vrzd');">⁵</span> Is it not because they deduce it from [the case of] testimony?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By , v. p. 173, n. 8.');">⁶</span>

אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא מי מצית אמרת דלאו בדון מינה ומינה פליגי והתנן גבי פקדון שבועת הפקדון נוהגת באנשים ובנשים ברחוקין ובקרובין בכשרין ובפסולין בפני ב"ד ושלא בפני ב"ד מפי עצמו ומפי אחרים אינו חייב עד שיכפור בו בב"ד דברי ר"מ וחכ"א בין מפי עצמו ובין מפי אחרים כיון שכפר בו חייב

Hence, you must infer from this that they disagree on [the principle of] 'deduce from it, and [entirely] from it'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they bold that, in the case of deposit, even where adjured by others, he is liable even outside the Beth Din, obviously they deduce liability for adjuration by others from the case of testimony, though they do not make the case of deposit entirely like the case of testimony; for in the latter they hold the denial must always be before the Beth Din; whereas in the case of deposit, once they have deduced that there is liability for adjuration by others, they say, 'establish it in its own place', i.e., make the law of adjuration by others equal to the law of swearing of his own accord, which (in the case of a deposit) does not need to be before the Beth Din.');">⁷</span> - [R'Papa replied:] From this, yes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We certainly infer that the Sages hold 'deduce from it, and establish it in its own place'; but from our Mishnah it is not possible to draw this inference, for it may be that the Sages deduce their ruling by inference from minor to major, as explained above.');">⁸</span> but from the other it is not possible to infer it.

מושבע מפי אחרים בפקדון מנא להו לרבנן דחייב לאו דגמרי לה מעדות ושמע מינה בדון מינה ומינה פליגי

AND THEY ARE LIABLE FOR THE WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF THE OATH. How do we know this? - For our Rabbis taught: In all of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Laws of uncleanness and oath of utterance; Lev. V, 2-4.');">⁹</span> it is said, and it be hid [from him]; but here it is not said, and it hid, in order to make him liable for wilful as for unwitting transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 136, for notes.');">¹⁰</span>

מההיא אין מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:

AND FOR ITS UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION COUPLED WITH WILFUL [DENIAL OF KNOWLEDGE OF] TESTIMONY. How is unwitting transgression possible coupled with wilful [denial of knowledge of] testimony? - Said Rab Judah that Rab said: If one says, 'I know that this oath is prohibited, but I do not know if one is liable to bring an offering for it or not.' BUT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ITS UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION ONLY.

וחייבין על זדון השבועה: מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן בכולן נאמר בהן ונעלם וכאן לא נאמר בה ונעלם לחייב על המזיד כשוגג:

Shall we say that we are here taught [a confirmation of] that which R'Kahana and R'Assi [were told]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26a; Rab re-assured the one who bad sworn falsely by telling him he had committed no offence, since be had made a genuine mistake. Why was it necessary for Rab to re-assure him? Does not this mishnah teach us that one is not liable for absolutely unwitting transgression?');">¹¹</span> - No! Although we learnt it [here], it was necessary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rab to re-assure them in the case of oath of utterance.');">¹²</span> for I might have thought, here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of oath of testimony.');">¹³</span>

ועל שגגתה עם זדון העדות: ה"ד שגגתה עם זדון העדות א"ר יהודה אמר רב באומר יודע אני ששבועה זו אסורה אבל איני יודע אם חייבין עליה קרבן אם לא:

because it is not written and it be hid, we require unwitting to be like wilful transgression;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But for a genuine mistake he is not liable.');">¹⁴</span> but there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of oath of utterance.');">¹⁵</span> since it is written and it be hid, even unwitting transgression in a slight degree [makes him liable],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Holy Writ says he must bring an offering even if 'it be hid from him', i.e., even if he made a mistake.');">¹⁶</span>

ואין חייבין על שגגתה גרידתא לימא תנינא לדרב כהנא ודרב אסי

therefore he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab, in re-assuring R. Kahana and R. Assi.');">¹⁷</span> teaches us [that this is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that even in the case of oath of utterance there is no liability for a genuine mistake.');">¹⁸</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WHAT KIND IS THE OATH OF TESTIMONY?

לא אע"ג דתנן איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הכא הוא דלא כתיב ונעלם דבעינן שוגג דומיא דמזיד אבל התם דכתיב ונעלם אפילו שגגתה כל דהו קמ"ל:

HE SAID TO TWO [PERSONS]: 'COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME'; [AND THEY REPLIED:] 'WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU'; OR THEY SAID TO HIM: 'WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU', [AND HE SAID:] 'I ADJURE YOU', AND THEY SAID, 'AMEN!', THEY ARE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they really knew testimony, and thus swore falsely.');">¹⁹</span> IF HE ADJURED THEM FIVE TIMES OUTSIDE THE BETH DIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they denied knowledge of testimony.');">²⁰</span> AND THEY CAME TO THE BETH DIN, AND ADMITTED [KNOWLEDGE OF TESTIMONY], THEY ARE EXEMPT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because denial outside the Beth Din does not make them liable.');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שבועת העדות כיצד אמר לשנים בואו והעידוני שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות או שאמרו לו אין אנו יודעין לך עדות משביע אני עליכם ואמרו אמן הרי אלו חייבין

BUT IF THEY DENIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the Beth Din.');">²²</span> THEY ARE LIABLE FOR EACH [OATH].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sworn outside.');">²³</span> IF HE ADJURED THEM FIVE TIMES BEFORE THE BETH DIN, AND THEY DENIED [KNOWLEDGE OF TESTIMONY], THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY ONCE.

השביע עליהם חמש פעמים חוץ לב"ד ובאו לב"ד והודו פטורין כפרו חייבין על כל אחת ואחת השביע עליהן ה' פעמים בפני ב"ד וכפרו אינן חייבין אלא אחת אר"ש מה טעם הואיל ואינם יכולין לחזור ולהודות

SAID R'SIMEON: WHAT IS THE REASON?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why are they not liable for all the oaths?');">²⁴</span> BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFTERWARDS ADMIT [KNOWLEDGE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they denied knowledge of testimony immediately after the first adjuration before the Beth Din, they are no longer able to bear testimony');">²⁵</span> IF BOTH [PERSONS] DENIED [KNOWLEDGE] TOGETHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, within a short time of each other's denial; v. infra 32a.');">²⁶</span>

כפרו שניהן כאחד שניהן חייבין בזה אחר זה הראשון חייב והשני פטור כפר אחד והודה אחד הכופר חייב

THEY ARE BOTH LIABLE; IF ONE AFTER ANOTHER, THE FIRST IS LIABLE, AND THE SECOND EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the first denied knowledge, there is only one witness left, and one witness is not liable to bear testimony.');">²⁷</span> IF ONE DENIED, AND THE OTHER ADMITTED, THE ONE WHO DENIED IS LIABLE. IF THERE WERE TWO SETS OF WITNESSES, AND THE FIRST DENIED, AND THEN THE SECOND DENIED, THEY ARE BOTH LIABLE, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY COULD BE UPHELD BY [EITHER OF] THE TWO.

היו שתי כיתי עדים כפרה הראשונה ואח"כ כפרה השניה שתיהן חייבות מפני שהעדות יכולה להתקיים בשתיהן:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Samuel said: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses.');">²⁸</span> saw him running after them, and they said to him, 'Why are you running after us? We swear we know no testimony for you', they are exempt, [being liable only] when they hear from his mouth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Come and bear testimony for me.'');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר שמואל ראוהו שרץ אחריהן אמרו לו מה אתה רץ אחרינו שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות פטורין עד שישמעו מפיו מאי קא משמע לן תנינא שילח ביד עבדו או שאמר להן הנתבע משביע אני עליכם שאם אתם יודעין לו עדות שתבואו ותעידוהו הרי אלו פטורים

- What does he teach us? We have learnt it: If he sent [the adjuration] by his slave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He sent his slave to adjure them to bear testimony for him.');">³⁰</span> or if the defendant said to them: 'I adjure you that, if you know any testimony for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plaintiff.');">³¹</span> you should come and bear testimony for him', they are exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they falsely deny knowledge of testimony.');">³²</span>